/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1832434]

Okay so I just bought two 1000-page bricks on physics and calculus for 5€ each, couldn't resist the bargain. Problem is, they're from 2000.

Is this shit still legit/have there been any major breakthroughs in physics during the last 10 years? (That would make it into a university physics book)

[Anonymous No.1832438]

Totally obsolete, you should trash them.

[Anonymous No.1832456]

Major breakthroughs, yeah, probably.

But not on the undergraduate level. Undergraduate physics is solid as a rock, it's not gonna change.

[Anonymous No.1832463]

the books are from 2000, right?
then they won't mention the discovery of the most important power in physics: GOD

[Anonymous No.1832500]

>>1832463

[Anonymous No.1832503]

For undergraduate stuff they'll be fine

[Anonymous No.1832515]

There has been some stuff on /sci/ regarding breakthroughs in the area of spontaneous magnetic propulsion.

[Anonymous No.1832517]

Seriously, physics is still 99.9999% the same as it was in 2000. And 99.99% the same as it was in 1962. Yeah, there's been some advances, but nothing you really need to worry about.

However, this points out why you shouldn't ever just accept what a text book says. Look up the topic elsewhere. See if things are treated differently by other authors. See if there are any new discoveries. Or new methods.

Jackson E&M is considered the god-book of electromagnetism, but half the book is archaic math nobody would really bother with anymore. They're contrived examples that are completely outdated with the advent of high-power computing and modeling.

Education is the beginning of knowledge, not the end of it.

[Anonymous No.1832547]

>>1832515

Agreed Prof. Trollface will surely win the Noble once any one of his his prototype pass those initial tests.

If only we could secure more funding for his groundbreaking new research.

[Anonymous No.1832643]

[Anonymous No.1832659]

I decided to start checking out old library books for calculus and maybe physics later, but how does one go through these without a class to guide? I've never done self study and find it difficult if not impossible to work when there's no assignment due.

[Anonymous No.1832839]

>>1832659

Self study is quite dull, but the books are a great supplement for regular courses. I've never tried 100% autonomous studying. Well maybe once or twice, didn't work out too good.

[Anonymous No.1832886]

>>1832659

Really? You might not be cut out to be a scientist or mathematician then..

If you're a true science just the idea of being presented with problems should fuel your drive to solve them. Don't you have the inner urge to completely understand your subject?

When finished with reading a calculus textbook chapter, you should find yourself automatically completing the practice exercises (and don't skip out of the difficult "prove this" ones u faggetz"

[Anonymous No.1832895]

>>1832659

Really? You might not be cut out to be a scientist or mathematician then..

If you're a true scientist, just the idea of being presented with problems should fuel your drive to solve them. Don't you have the inner urge to completely understand your subject?

When finished with reading a calculus textbook chapter, you should find yourself automatically completing the practice exercises (and don't skip out of the difficult "prove this" ones u faggetz")

[Anonymous No.1832942]

>>1832895

I was only talking about the fact (on my part) that trying to learn something you don't know anything about beforehand is quite hard purely from a book. I do have that urge, and I do satisfy my curiosity by studying things by myself way beyond my 'level'. I think you and I both share the same passion for the awesome machinery of nature and the universe. (yes, a bit of Sagan there)

[Anonymous No.1832963]

>>1832942

oh cool, perhaps I misunderstood you then.

well, I'm not too sure what you mean then, I don't think you should ever find yourself trying to learn something that you know absolutely nothing about. Can you perhaps give an example?

The only way I can see that happening is if you skip a step, i.e Trying to learn complex analysis before you take set theory or in lower terms; trying to learn calculus before you learn trig.

As long as you take things step-by-step you should always have a strong base on which you can build upon.

[Anonymous No.1833011]

Oh gawd! How could you? And 5€? How can you live with such a loss?

Also, it's pretty useless. Gravity before y2k-bug was repulsive, so all calculations are wrong.

[OP No.1833015]

>implying Newtonian mechanics has changed at all since the 16th century.

[Anonymous No.1833018]

>>1833011

lol I like the way you troll

[Anonymous No.1833019]

>>1833015

OP why u giving a condescending answer...to your own question? lawlwut

[Anonymous No.1833054]

OP here, addendum:

>engineers

u mad?

[Anonymous No.1833058]

we speak relativity too

[Anonymous No.1833071]

Okay so I just bought this 336-page bricks on calculus for 5€, couldn't resist the bargain. Problem is, it's from 1910.

Is this shit still legit/have there been any major breakthroughs in calculus during the last 100 years? (That would make it into a university physics book)